Downside of a higher retirement age
Life spans have increased, but some say raising the Social Security retirement age is not fair for all seniors.
This post comes from Philip Moeller at partner site U.S. News & World Report.
Now that the post-election entitlements fights are back in the spotlight, raising the Social Security retirement age will return to center stage as one of the common prescriptions for closing the program's long-term funding gap.
Increasing or entirely lifting the ceiling on taxable wages -- set at $113,700 in 2013 -- is another frequently mentioned proposal. Further down on the list are measures to change the annual cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security recipients and restrict payments to high-income beneficiaries, as well as a slew of benefit tweaks that could have a meaningful cumulative impact on program finances.
Unlike the government's other big safety net programs -- Medicare and Medicaid -- Social Security is not facing imminent funding problems. With no changes at all, the program projects that it will pay all benefits for more than 20 years and would then be able to continue paying out roughly three-quarters of benefits.
Another misconception about Social Security is that it is floating in red ink. Actually, the program had a surplus of about $2.7 trillion in 2012. This cushion will grow further before being sapped by rising benefit payments triggered by millions of retiring baby boomers.
At first glance, raising the retirement age seems like a straightforward change that simply recognizes the demographic realities of aging. People are living longer than ever and are physically able to continue working into their 60s and even 70s. The economy will need more older workers because retiring boomers are being followed by a much smaller generation of workers.
Lastly, people will need to keep working more years for financial reasons -- to recover from the recession and to fund retirements that will last a long time.
Social Security is one of the ways they will boost retirement earnings, of course. Most people earn more money later in their working lives than when they were younger. So adding several years to people's Social Security earnings history is likely to boost their Social Security benefits when they do retire.
So what's not to like? According to a phalanx of liberal seniors groups -- foundations, think tanks, women's groups and other Social Security "preservationists" -- the longevity rationale for raising the retirement age doesn't apply to lower-income and less-educated men and, especially, women. They would get hammered by raising the retirement age. And they are precisely the group of Americans -- and a pretty big group at that -- that depends desperately on Social Security benefits for the bulk of their retirement incomes.
Here's the preservationist logic against raising the retirement age:
1. Social Security benefits are pegged so that a person reaching what the agency calls its "full retirement age" (FRA) is entitled to his or her full benefit. People retiring at the earliest age, which is now 62, get about 75% as much money each month from Social Security as if they had waited until their FRA -- 66 for those now approaching retirement.
It's also possible to defer taking Social Security until age 70, when the monthly benefit would be about 132% of what it is at age 66. This benefit structure was designed to be dollar-neutral to Social Security. Looking at longevity data and past decisions of beneficiaries, the agency figured that it will pay out the same amount of money regardless of when people elect to begin receiving benefits.
Raising the retirement age from 66 to 70 means that the time gap between early retirement at 62 and full retirement would be increased from four to eight years. This assumes it would still be possible to take early retirement at age 62. If the agency keeps its benefit structure in place, it no longer could afford to pay people 75% of their FRA benefit if they elected to begin receiving the benefit at age 62. Instead, that "value neutral" payment at age 62 would fall to about 57% of the full benefit.
2. In theory, longevity gains mean that if the FRA was raised to 70, early retirement might begin at age 66 and not 62. Raising the retirement age would thus shift everyone by four years. The system would save money by having to pay benefits for four fewer years. But individuals would not be so bad off, because they'd have worked for an extra four years and presumably boosted their retirement incomes during that period of extra work.
But while such longer lives are truly wonderful, they unfortunately are not being enjoyed by lower-income, less-educated people who work in physically taxing jobs. They're not living longer.
Wealthier and better-educated people, on balance, follow healthier lifestyles, seek out medical care and follow their doctors' advice in taking medications and related therapies for health problems.
3. Lower-income people often are not able to extend their working lives another four years. Many work in physically demanding jobs, and their bodies have worn out by the time they enter their 60s. People who retire at age 62 today tend to work in these low-income, physically demanding jobs. For them, early retirement is not a luxury but a forced necessity.
4. Raising the retirement age will thus sharply cut benefits of people who are still forced to seek early retirement. And these folks often have little set aside in the way of a retirement nest egg. Social Security benefits thus represent a very large percentage of their retirement incomes. Cutting those benefits, preservationists argue, is thus punitive as well as heartless.
More on U.S. News & World Report and MSN Money:
Alot of the poor and uneducated have been living off the government since they were 21!! or had there 1st kids. Many of these people have been "retired" there whole lives.
Also no more SS or any kind of welfare for ILLEGALS!! Get legal and come to this country as a law biding citizen and if you qualify and "need" help americans are glad to give it. But being encouraged to come to the US illegally just so you can vote socalist democrat NO MORE!!!
HGW347 (below) makes good points and does accurately state the history of Social Security. Though the scenario could be described as a PONZI SCHEME (his words), it may be more accurate to acknowledge that it was cowardice and/or ineptness by the nation's leadership! Politicians have merely ignored the building dilemma (which has been apparent for many, many years) and kicked the proverbial SS "can" (challenges) down the road - rather than act in a responsible manner to resolve the dilemma (the same is true for education, healthcare, illegal immigration, job security, wasteful spending, artificially low savings interest rates, etc.). Folks, we elected these fools, and we are reaping what we sowed. Sad!
If we have any hope for a resolution, we had better learn to vote for resolutions - and not necessarily for a particular party.
SS was never implemented with all the handouts it now has in the forms of SSDI among others. SSDI requirements were significantly loosened and have made it much easier for anyone to collect. There was a 60 minutes episode years ago where they interviewed a number of retired people and basically told them that their SS was paid back to them with interest in approximately (drumroll please)... 3 years. Some felt we should still pay them for as long as they live. SS needs to take more from our checks if everyone wants to profit from the system for the rest of their lives. This was a government handout to people and always will be. The government just thought they would be able to get away with it because there were so many workers to pay for it way back when. 16:1 then and 3:1 now. This program will never be reformed because people like government handouts at the expense of everyone else. Whether Democrat or Republican the American public is not willing to make the hard decisions to cut entitlement programs that people think they deserve by virtue of just being alive in this country.
Some facts from :
*Sigh...government at its finest...the perfect Ponzi scheme.
The citizens are going to have to kick the current politicians out of office and bring in a newly elected Senate and House. These career politicians have no idea how the rest of us have to live. Folks, we need:
(1) term limits on the Congress and
(2) to ELECT AVERAGE CITIZENS (not career politicians) to represent all Americans, and
(3) government politicians and employees need to be limited to the same benefits as the rest of the citizens under Social Security and Medicare.
Regarding the appropriate age for full retirement, politicians don't understand:
(1) some jobs are more physically demanding and people just cannot work them until they are 70, and
(2) despite the laws on the books, many Americans are still pressed out of their careers in their early 60s; therefore, if the Social Security retirement age goes up, then corporations need to be "mandated" to not force out (by hook or crook) elder workers before they reach full retirement age. Don't raise retirement age without ensuring jobs are maintained by the aging workers!
Lastly, jobs are at a premium in today's America; that is, unemployment remains high! There are many reasons, and one reason rests with illegal immigration. The media says illegals take jobs Americans don't want. That's a lie! Employers should be forced under penalty of felony and jail time to verify employees are legally available to work in the USA. This approach will open more jobs for those that are here legally, thus, approved to work in the USA. It will also insure that fair wages are paid to legal US workers instead of unfairly low wages that employers prefer to pay illegals (in order to add to the employer's profits).
ALUR77 really needs to grow up and get a cmd of the english language and take a course in people skills of which he is severely lacking. The older work force has knowledge he'll never have and their skills are needed to train young generations. But some people can be taught, maybe alur77 falls in that class of losers.
What concerns me is that while we're all squabbling and blaming each other, someone is robbing us our our golden years: whether it be the banksters, corporate elite, or the government (which has really just become the puppet of the other two).
What if we all decided to strike: government and private sector alike? Where would any of these organizations be without workers? I have never worked a union job, but it seems to me that when people unite and make a stand, like they did against industrial giants like Carnegie and JP Morgan, we can take our country back.
I see a lot of turmoil going on today that is showing me how close we are to returning to late 19th century America, where workers had no rights, no SS, no security at all. It frightens me. What frightens me even more is the pulling of History and Social Studies in classrooms across the country and outsourcing the University courses in History to poorly paid part-time faculty. If we don't learn from what happened in the past, how can we protect ourselves from repeating it? Be afraid, be very afraid when dollars are pulled from pubic education and schools are funded by some reincarnation of Rockefeller or Carnegie. Who's best interest do you think a guy like that is going to have in mind? Your kids'? The country's? No, their own.
The whole thing is just wrong and sad. The Government took the SS funds and now says that there is not enough to cover the program. I agree with most of the other people that have posted comments, why doesn't the news media make a big deal about how SS funds were taken every time a congressman or senator says that SS benefits need to be reduced because of the level of funds left in the program.
HAS ANYONE OPENED THEIR EYES TO THE FACT THAT THE LONGER THE ELDERS TAKE TO RETIRE, THE LESS JOB POSITIONS AND OPENINGS WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR THE YOUNGER ONES THAT ARE GRADUATING EVERY YEAR.
WHAT HAPPENS TO THOSE THAT WANT TO FIND POSITIONS AFTER THEY GRADUATE?
IS ANYONE THINKING ABOUT THIS? IS ANYONE THINKING AT ALL??
Until Congress has the same rules as it makes for US citizens they will get ZERO respect.
and until the robot-voters stop putting the same criminals back in office, THIS will be as good as it ever gets.
Copyright © 2014 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
ABOUT SMART SPENDING
LATEST BLOG POSTS
Cheap LED light bulbs cost more upfront -- between $8 to $10 apiece -- but begin to pay off within 18 months.
VIDEO ON MSN MONEY
BLOGS WE LIKE
MUST-SEE ON MSN
A charcuterie master shares his process for cold-smoking meat at home.
- Jetpacks about to go mainstream
- Weird things covered by home insurance
- Bing: 70 percent of adults report 'digital eye strain'